Pro will argue in favor of the resolution that the Universe's hypothesized "Big Bang theory" is in fact true.

Theory:

According to the Big Bang theory, matter and energy was compacted together. The universe was extremely dense. At one point, there was a cataclysmic explosion. The mass and energy filled up those spaces.

Contentions:

1. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy[1], in particular), energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed.

2. If statement #1 is true, then energy must be finite.

3. The Sun needs energy.

4. If statement #3 is true, and the mass and energy is filling up those spaces, how does the Sun have energy?

Pleased to "meet" you, Con. I look forward to a good discussion. Now, without further ado, I shall analyze my opponent's contentions.

Contention #1 This, of course, is not debatable.

Contention #2C2 does not logically follow from C1 as my opponent claims. All that the principle of the conservation of energy proves is that the amount of energy in the universe has not changed since its inception. It does not say whether that energy was finite or infinite.

That being said, I do not contest your conclusion but your assertion that C2 flows from C1.

Contention #3I am not sure as to what you mean by "The Sun needs energy." The sun is essentially a massive nuclear reactor that produces its own energy.[1]

Contention #4Your arguments are greatly lacking in clarity, but I believe that what you are trying to argue is that if energy was distributed throughout the universe by the Big Bang then there should be no localized "masses" of it like the sun. As pointed out my response to C3, the sun is a mass with the correct "ingredients" to act as nuclear reactor, thus recycling one form of already existing energy into another.

What is the original argument, and what do you exactly mean by the Sun "needs" energy?

I should also point out that none of this is the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory just describes how the universe came to be. It doesn't attempt to explain anything more than Hubble's law and the origin of the Universe.

I am still a bit confused on what exactly pro is to debate. Is pro trying to answer contention #4? There isn't really anything that you have stated that can be refuted, since you just stated physical laws. I mean, I could argue contention #2, technically #3, and answer #4 if that is what I should do, but this is a very unconventional debate.

So, could you clarify a bit more as to what pro is to do, since you can't argue contention #1 at all, and #4 asks a question.